When to use the subjunctive: some difficult cases

On the previous pages, we saw various circumstances where the French subjunctive
is triggered. In general, these circumstances fit in with our statement that the subjunctive
expresses a non-assertion. There are some other cases that are more difficult to
rationalise and to some extent are just a matter of convention.

espérer takes the indicative

The verb espérer, meaning "to hope", is the verb par excellence for introducing
a non-assertion. But conventionally, it takes a normal indicative:

One view is that espérer nonetheless leans in favour of
the event actually being realised, i.e. introduces "more of an assertion" than, say, désirer
or souhaiter, which do trigger the subjunctive (Leeman-Bouix, 1994, quoted in
Rowlett (2007:149) and Jones (1997:189)). But not only is this argument tentative, but it
is to some extent unnecessary. There is a tendency in informal speech for speakers to
in fact use the subjunctive with espérer:

So an alternative view is that speakers do indeed 'naturally' treat espérer
as taking a non-assertion triggering the subjunctive, just like its other synonyms. The use of
espérer with the indicative is largely an 'artificial' prescriptive convention.

Thus, negation and interrogation are sometimes referred to as "assertion toggling"
operations. In isolation, either can switch the indicative to the subjunctive, but
together they 'cancel each other out'. Note that this
toggling effect can also apply to adjectives such as possible
(cf Rowlett, 2007:150).

Aussi/tout/quelque/si ... que ..., Autant que ...

Prescriptively, autant que... ("as far as...") takes the indicative
except in the construction autant que je sache (Thomas, 1971:44). But
in case that was ever actual usage,
there's now a tendency to extend the subjunctive to other verbs. Price (2003:374) suggests
that the choice depends on the 'degree of certainty or uncertainty the clause is intended
to express'. A quick Google search suggests a roughly 50:50 split between
(pour) autant que je m'en souviens and (pour) autant que je m'en souvienne
("as far as I remember").

tout triggers indicative or subjunctive depending on whether the
'factual nature of the statement is stressed' (Price 2001:378).
The use with the subjunctive corresponds
roughly to cases where English uses however. The other constructions
appear to systematically trigger the subjunctive.

Subjunctive "leaking"

There are some cases in both English and French where a logically unexpected
form occurs because one word influences or 'leaks' on to a nearby word or, structurally,
one language feature 'percolates' or 'leaks' down from one word to words that it governs.
Interestingly, the French subjunctive is an example of such leaking.
Rowlett (2007:153) gives the following example:

Strictly speaking, there's no logical reason to expect the subjunctive here, at least
in terms of what verb directly governs what: voulais selects a
subjunctive, croie. But qu'elle croie que... is
a non-negative, non-interrogative form of croire, which under such
circumstances usually takes the indicative. A negative main clause generally triggers
a subjunctive in its subordinate clause, but que je sois... isn't
directly subordinate to the main clause. What seems to have happened is that
the negation plus preceding subjunctive form have somehow 'induced' or 'leaked' a subjunctive in
the bottom clause2.

Note
1. Opinions appear to differ on how common the indicative is with other forms of interrogation
(est-ce que and intonation). Abouda (2001:17) cites Huot (1986) as
'clearly demonstrating that the subjunctive is really only acceptable (and in common usage)
if the verb of opinion is in a total interrogative construction characterised by
subject-clitic inversion' (my translation). Contrast this with Hawkins & Towell (2001)
who give the example est'ce que Jean pense que Pierre soit venu?.
2. Rowlett gives a possible structural mechanism for this 'leaking' happening, which would
assume it is a linguistic process. Note that this leaking pattern is by no means
systematic, however. It may be a conscious 'hypercorrection' rather than a truly
linguistic process that requires a formal structural mechanism to explain it.